Complete BS and I have yet to see an article on a main stream web page end with that statement. Two, you have not seen a single study, much less a "ton" make reference to CM and prostates cancer. Feel free to post one if you feel I'm incorrect, Again, review I just posted covers ALL known possible side effects. If you're gonna fall for every random claim about creatine you see on the 'net, along with "protons will kill your liver and kidneys" and "weight training stunts growth" debunked nonsense, you'll be chasing your tail forever.

Chill a little bit there dude lol - I love bodybuilding.com - so much intensity - I can't post links yet so do a search for "creating causes prostate cancer" and select the link for the website called "exercisebioogy" also, I do stand corrected - the article doesn't end with the statement I mentioned - I meant to say "Comments" on the topic (which there is one from the author of the article I'm about to post) ends that way - By mainstream sites as well, I mean the standards like livestrong.com, webmd.com (yes web md has an article that states creatine causes testicular cancer!! and it's a horrible article that lists literally no proof!!).

Chill a little bit there dude lol - I love bodybuilding.com - so much intensity - I can't post links yet so do a search for "creating causes prostate cancer" and select the link for the website called "exercisebioogy" also, I do stand corrected - the article doesn't end with the statement I mentioned - I meant to say "Comments" on the topic (which there is one from the author of the article I'm about to post) ends that way - By mainstream sites as well, I mean the standards like livestrong.com, webmd.com (yes web md has an article that states creatine causes testicular cancer!! and it's a horrible article that lists literally no proof!!).

It's very simple. If you want the opinion of an expert (me) on creatine, well supported by the science (see rest of the thread), than you have it. If you wanna waste time on sites such as livestrong etc with articles written by plebs who want to sound as if they have some angle people didn't know about and such, that's ok with me. As I said, I have not seen a single study nor legit article connecting CM with an increased risk of prostate cancer.

Good luck.

BrinkZone, Where Bro-Science Got Rabies and Died!

www.BrinkZone.com

Check out my BrinkZone mini site on BB.com at:

www.bodybuilding.com/fun/willbrink.htm

=> President and Founder of Shaved head with goatee Crew
=> Science over bro science Crew

It's very simple. If you want the opinion of an expert (me) on creatine, well supported by the science (see rest of the thread), than you have it. If you wanna waste time on sites such as livestrong etc with articles written by plebs who want to sound as if they have some angle people didn't know about and such, that's ok with me. As I said, I have not seen a single study nor legit article connecting CM with an increased risk of prostate cancer.

Good luck.

Have you read my posts in full? If you did you would see that I said I STAY AWAY from those mainstream sites - I provided you with that link because you said to provide you with one link....so I did. lol...I can't stand "bro-science" either and I am upfront in staying that I have very limited knowledge on supplements.

Loosen up and open your mind a bit more to other people - not everyone you speak with is a close-minded nimrod - also actually READ what people post lol.

"These studies show that short and long-term supplementation (up to 30 g/day for 5 years) is safe and well-tolerated in healthy individuals and in a number of patient populations ranging from infants to the elderly. Moreover, significant health benefits may be provided by ensuring habitual low dietary creatine ingestion (e.g., 3 g/day) throughout the lifespan."

What I'm asking is if this study is saying that 3g a day will have significant health benefits is based on the 30g a day for 5 years or is it based on a study of only 3g a day (for 5 years)? I'm also wondering if the same results will be shown at 5g a day (for 5 years). I know it technically doesn't matter as the original tests were done at 30 g a day but I am curious if there were any individual studies done at just 5 (or 3) grams only.

"These studies show that short and long-term supplementation (up to 30 g/day for 5 years) is safe and well-tolerated in healthy individuals and in a number of patient populations ranging from infants to the elderly. Moreover, significant health benefits may be provided by ensuring habitual low dietary creatine ingestion (e.g., 3 g/day) throughout the lifespan."

What I'm asking is if this study is saying that 3g a day will have significant health benefits is based on the 30g a day for 5 years or is it based on a study of only 3g a day (for 5 years)? I'm also wondering if the same results will be shown at 5g a day (for 5 years). I know it technically doesn't matter as the original tests were done at 30 g a day but I am curious if there were any individual studies done at just 5 (or 3) grams only.

The key to that is "up to" which translates to mean from the lowest known effective dose (3g) to "up to" 30g, shown to have the benefits of creatine and be " safe and well-tolerated in healthy individuals." There's now stacks of studies using lower doses in the 3-5g range showing benefits without any side effects. Links in the OP, as well as link to full paper of that review you're quoting from above will have citations to many/most of the studies if you are interested in reading further on that.

BrinkZone, Where Bro-Science Got Rabies and Died!

www.BrinkZone.com

Check out my BrinkZone mini site on BB.com at:

www.bodybuilding.com/fun/willbrink.htm

=> President and Founder of Shaved head with goatee Crew
=> Science over bro science Crew

The key to that is "up to" which translates to mean from the lowest known effective dose (3g) to "up to" 30g, shown to have the benefits of creatine and be " safe and well-tolerated in healthy individuals." There's now stacks of studies using lower doses in the 3-5g range showing benefits without any side effects. Links in the OP, as well as link to full paper of that review you're quoting from above will have citations to many/most of the studies if you are interested in reading further on that.

Quick question. Is it true that if I take creatine today in the morning, it will `enter` my system in 24 hours? Can you please answer me this honestly. I am asking because I have only 5grams left and my new creatine order is late and will only arrive on monday, so I wanna use the 5g left on sunday, to kick in for the monday workout.

I recently picked up Muscle Tech Creacore Pro Series (can't post link cause I'm new) and this the first time I'm trying Creatine at all. The label recommends to take it 4X a day while I've seen other mixed comments with some saying take 2X separately or 2 scoops once a day.

It's 1.5G per serving with a mix of two types of Creatine.

Anyone with experience able to add some additional insight as to the best amount to start and the best time to take.

I recently picked up Muscle Tech Creacore Pro Series (can't post link cause I'm new) and this the first time I'm trying Creatine at all. The label recommends to take it 4X a day while I've seen other mixed comments with some saying take 2X separately or 2 scoops once a day.

It's 1.5G per serving with a mix of two types of Creatine.

Anyone with experience able to add some additional insight as to the best amount to start and the best time to take.

Read the OP? If not, read the OP.

BrinkZone, Where Bro-Science Got Rabies and Died!

www.BrinkZone.com

Check out my BrinkZone mini site on BB.com at:

www.bodybuilding.com/fun/willbrink.htm

=> President and Founder of Shaved head with goatee Crew
=> Science over bro science Crew

Yes I did read the original post however didn't see mention to this particular brand. The instructions seemed to be unique from what I've seen with others. No mention of loading and the smaller dosage recommendations. Wanted to see if any other users has experience it. Maybe I chose the wrong thread.

Question: The established wisdom seems to be that 3-5g/day is the effective and recommended dosage. Are there any studies showing how effective higher doses are? Say, if 5g/day improves performance, does 10g/day result in even better performance? Or would the extra amount just be flushed out, and the final result is the same?

I read through the whole thread (again), and saw some discussion above about the safety of higher doses. But I didn't find much about the performance aspect of higher doses.

Question: The established wisdom seems to be that 3-5g/day is the effective and recommended dosage. Are there any studies showing how effective higher doses are? Say, if 5g/day improves performance, does 10g/day result in even better performance? Or would the extra amount just be flushed out, and the final result is the same?

I read through the whole thread (again), and saw some discussion above about the safety of higher doses. But I didn't find much about the performance aspect of higher doses.

We are trying to maximize the benefit to risk here, so taking 3-5g daily will saturate pc and provide the ATP benefits, while reducing the risk of nephrotoxicity and damage to your kidneys. There is no need to go above that dose which has been proven to be safe & effective.

Creatine gives me double chin. No change in diet (low sodium) and making sure I'm always hydrated. I even implemented cardio for a month to burn what I thought was fat. I'm able to lift heavier and for more reps supplementing with creatine, but the double chin is not worth it.

Additional info: I did not load, 5g daily, supplemented for 2 months.

I'm stopping usage of creatine and will report back on double chin in about a month or whenever it goes away, hopefully much sooner than later.

There is studies showing creatine beaks down into ethylamine, formaldehyde, and formic acid which may be a problem with long term high dose supplementation. And there is a study showing the creatine transporter is saturable, and switches off once enough is in the cell which is why some people experience zero benefit from creatine monohdyrate supplementation. Try creatinol o phosphate which overcomes these problems.

There is studies showing creatine beaks down into ethylamine, formaldehyde, and formic acid which may be a problem with long term high dose supplementation. And there is a study showing the creatine transporter is saturable, and switches off once enough is in the cell which is why some people experience zero benefit from creatine monohdyrate supplementation. Try creatinol o phosphate which overcomes these problems.

Please post one. Decades now of research, up to 5 year retrospective, and every study to date shows benefits. Not one I'm aware of shows "a problem with long term high dose supplementation"

Please post the CM vs creatinol o phosphate studies also.

Thanx

Last edited by WillBrink; 07-12-2017 at 08:11 AM.

BrinkZone, Where Bro-Science Got Rabies and Died!

www.BrinkZone.com

Check out my BrinkZone mini site on BB.com at:

www.bodybuilding.com/fun/willbrink.htm

=> President and Founder of Shaved head with goatee Crew
=> Science over bro science Crew

Please post one. Decades now of research, up to 5 year retrospective, and every study to date shows benefits. Not one I'm aware of shows "a problem with long term high dose supplementation"

Please post the CM vs creatinol o phosphate studies also.

Thanx

A lot of the studies on monohydrate are fraudulent like ones that say it is 100% absorbed from the intestines. Over 200 million dollars a year of monohydrate is sold, and a lot of the authors of studies on monohydrate own companies that sell it. I am not aware of any mono vs creatinol o phosphate studies, do you know of any? It would not look good for monohydrate if one were done so it is unlikely to be funded.

A lot of the studies on monohydrate are fraudulent like ones that say it is 100% absorbed from the intestines. Over 200 million dollars a year of monohydrate is sold, and a lot of the authors of studies on monohydrate own companies that sell it.

False. You're just pulling stuff from your you know what in an attempt to sound smart. The studies we see done by people selling X form of creatine that competed with CM, are often done by people who own the patent etc. Stacks of studies done on CM are from various uni labs, etc,. mil facilities, That does not mean studies should be accepted without critical review, but your generalized statement, as it applies to CM, is BS.

Originally Posted by Workingstrong

I am not aware of any mono vs creatinol o phosphate studies, do you know of any? It would not look good for monohydrate if one were done so it is unlikely to be funded.

There's a number of creatinol o phosphate studies, all done via IM. It's a synthetic compound that shows promise as cardio protective, likely of no value taken orally. If some company felt they could sell it as a superior alternative to CM, they'd be all over it funding a study as they have other forms, all of which were found inferior to CM once put to the test. You claimed use of creatinol o phosphate would avoid the problems of CM, yet offered no evidence of that.

if you copy paste that into google second result is a full article pdf

and third result is good too

As we have so many studies finding CM to be neuro protective, valuable in various neuro muscular disease, etc, etc, etc if the levels of methylamine, formaldehyde, and formate reached were cytotoxic we'd know about it and the very study you posted
found CM did "... not have any detrimental effects on kidney permeability. This provides indirect evidence of the absence of microangiopathy in renal glomeruli."

We produce and excrete all manner of potentially cytotoxic compounds. The issue as always is levels achieved, dose, duration risk to benefits, etc. and the data strongly suggests the benefits of CM FAR outweigh any risks to date.

BrinkZone, Where Bro-Science Got Rabies and Died!

www.BrinkZone.com

Check out my BrinkZone mini site on BB.com at:

www.bodybuilding.com/fun/willbrink.htm

=> President and Founder of Shaved head with goatee Crew
=> Science over bro science Crew

Do you have any evidence the creatine transporter does not get saturated, and switch off? Because studies say it does. And I don't mean a study funded or done by someone with financial ties to selling creatine monohydrate.

Based on what you wrote you know a lot about COP, maybe you take it yourself, however you got a number of things wrong making you look foolish. A "synthetic" compound simply means a compound made in a lab by man especially one in nature. Perhaps you meant artificial which would mean a compound made by man that exists nowhere in nature. CM exists in nature, and is made in labs so it is synthetic. COP is a structural analog of creatine. COP is 60% absorbed by the intestines orally per the patents vs less than 3% absorbed orally for monohydrate per one study. COP is good for body building, athletics, the heart, and cancer also because it gets into cells really well, and gives up the phosphate group to raise the pH of the lower pH environment caused by the lactic acid build up. Oh a thing that gives up a phosphate group is called a - sound it out really slowly now so you learn it "fos fa gen", that is a phosphagen, just like creatine is because it came from creatine.

So you reject any studies that show long term high dose creatine monohydrate supplementation might be harmful. It is not surprising you have no interest in objective science but rather just want to sell people rubbish that does nothing, even though you don't take it yourself.

Always consult with a qualified healthcare professional prior to beginning any diet or exercise program or taking any dietary supplement. The content on our website is for informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice or to replace a relationship with a qualified healthcare professional.